EASA NPA 2017-05

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Maybe, but as I pointed out a few pages ago to operate in that category the aircraft must be flown "...in an area where it is reasonably expected that no uninvolved person will be present" and the operator must "...keep a safety distance from the boundaries of congested areas of cities, towns or settlements, or aerodromes". What do "reasonably expected" and "safety distance" mean legally?

It's massively imprecise and open to interpretation. They are going to need a lot more detail in these areas in order to create a workable outcome or else the first transgressor is going to embroil them in a lengthy precedent case.

Edited By MattyB on 22/05/2017 14:23:32

[Piers Bowlan]

Subcategory A3 = Geofencing, SSR Transponder, Approved course of training (probably recurrent tests), 'flight controller redundancy' (presumably RTH and autonomous flight), Minimum age limit of 14 (I don't need to worry there!). Sounds very expensive and unnecessary and the list is probably not complete either. All this just to enable you to chuck your balsa glider off a hill or cliff; probably miles from anywhere and virtually zero risk to the general public or other airspace users.

A few years ago you couldn't have made this up!

 

 

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 22/05/2017 14:31:56

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Piers Bowlan]

Thanks, just found it Steve in the NPA. Does mention a 'lost link management'(?) and 'selectable height limiter' How does that work?

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 22/05/2017 14:51:42

[Erfolg]

I remain of the opinion that aeromodelling as I know it, is coming to an end.

I take the view that at the present time it is not necessary to be aware of the detailed interpretation of each of the ideas and how they will be expressed in regulatory clauses. The direction of travel is established.

Registration, lying on our backs to have our tummies tickled, will not encourage those involved in the formulations of the laws and regulations to be any more reasonable. The best defence is to argue our corner as strongly as is possible.

I expect also that the regulations will change with time, from our perspective becoming more restrictive. Although never overly concerned with the future of the hobby, I do see two aspects potentially indicating that the future does not stretch into the distance. The first would be a requirement to be a club member that flies from a designated site. I know of a few modellers who prefer to fly by themselves, generally well away from others. I imagine that many will cease to be aeromodellers. The second issue is that registration will almost certainly have a fee involved, any fee will potentially have a wide cost interval, as an interpretation as to what is being registered. I have been a member of three clubs in very recent times, all the clubs had memberships between 30-80 people. Often it is just me flying, at best I see six others, this situation from my limited experience does seem typical. Even if registration is required for each person, rather than per model, I can envisage that many will no longer remain fliers, if additional fees are required beyond the current BMFA level. From a clubs perspective, this could easily put the financial viability of many clubs in doubt.

It is these fears which indicate to me we have to put up a strong fight. The fight is uneven, particularly that both business and governments suspect that there could be serious money, possibly employment and potentially the quality of services to the individual, by appropriate controls and charges.

It is ironic, that the very same improvements and developments in electronics that has brought us equipment and systems with tremendous capabilities at affordable cost, is the same that now threatens us, opening up other possibilities for other groups.

[MattyB]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 22/05/2017 14:18:13:

Subcategory A3 = Geofencing, SSR Transponder, Approved course of training (probably recurrent tests), 'flight controller redundancy' (presumably RTH and autonomous flight), Minimum age limit of 14 (I don't need to worry there!). Sounds very expensive and unnecessary and the list is probably not complete either. All this just to enable you to chuck your balsa glider off a hill or cliff; probably miles from anywhere and virtually zero risk to the general public or other airspace users.

Piers, read the table again - none of that applies to self built models if you meet the requirements I outlined above (click below to view it at a readable size). The problem though is meeting those requirements is very hard as they are so vague!

Edited By MattyB on 22/05/2017 15:02:05

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Piers Bowlan]

Thanks Matty, I just read that and I should have gone to spec-savers- didn't clock the N/a!

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 22/05/2017 14:59:49:

AMC1 UAS.OPEN.60(b) Operations in Subcategory A3

(a) Operations in Subcategory A3 may be conducted with UAS:

......

1. (6) privately built.

the technical requirements of the technical requirements of the technical requirements of the technical requirements of the technical requirements of

2. ...(c) The remote pilot should assess that reasonably, no uninvolved person will be present in the area and airspace where the UA is intended to be flown, during the entire time of the UAS operation.  

Some of the slope sites that I have flown fail (c), so I wouldn't be able to fly them under subcategory A3 and will have to see what deal the BMFA gets from the CAA.

I am quite sure prosecution lawyers will argue that any site with public access fails (c). Since the sites needed for sloping must by definition have public access for us to use them it will all hinge on the legal definition of the word "reasonably". Does that mean less than 10 people an hour traversing the area on average? Less than 5? Or less than 1?

Edited By MattyB on 22/05/2017 15:12:16

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

There will always be exceptions but 95%+ of our slope sites are accessed via some kind of public access agreement. I am not expecting you or anyone else to answer what those terms mean at this time; all I am pointing out is that the terms will have to be defined explicitly otherwise the legislation will be completely unworkable and modellers will have no idea whether or not they can operate legally at a given site under subcategory A3.

[Piers Bowlan]

My thoughts exactly Matty. Odd that EASA were not happy with excluding model aircraft from the prototype regulations as they could not find a suitable watertight definition (although the FAA did not have this problem with definition) but under the NPA EASA are happy with this rather subjective 'Fly far from people' for A3. I am not complaining.

[Erfolg]

I am wondering if the BMFA negotiating team have a group of readers such as Matty et al, who are going through the discussion documents, line by line etc. Then preparing a set of supporting notes, with respect to issues as discussed here, again paragraph by paragraph, clause by clause.

The negotiators are or would be in a position, to formulate their own responses and arguments, prior to discussions with those who do matter.

I am hoping the BMFA response is, yep, been there, done that, got the tee shirt

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Erf I have just finished doing exactly that for my club committee at the moment - never mind the BMFA!!

BEB

[Dave Bran]

SO, the other day I was flying at a well known and long established slope site, one with stated permissions on signs. I was all alone. Quiet peaceful envigorating flying. Nobody in sight as far as could be seen quite some distance.along the slope either way.

After half an hour a lady with dog wandered along and on an open and otherwise totally deserted hillside sat down on the grass landing zone less than ten feet away. Then she went on her mobile and started a loud (and very inane) conversation mostly slagging off a third person. After a few more minutes the dog, presumably now bored or deafened or both wandered over to me and stood by my side as I flew. She took no notice.

Eventually tired of her whining whinging voice I wandered a safe distance away to land, and the dog followed. She still took no notice. Luckily the dog wasn't a "bird chaser", and when I left it followed me for a while. I'm not a dog lover but I actually felt sorry for it.

Who was being the greater danger? Who's peace was being disturbed?

Fit that into the proposed regulations and/or other countries already stated rules!

[Keith Lomax]

Posted by Erfolg on 22/05/2017 20:36:59:

I am wondering if the BMFA negotiating team have a group of readers such as Matty et al, who are going through the discussion documents, line by line etc. Then preparing a set of supporting notes, with respect to issues as discussed here, again paragraph by paragraph, clause by clause.

EASA won't negotiate with individual national associations (understandable as they have 32 to deal with). They don't even negotiate with "competent authorities" (CAA) individually.

However, Europe Air Sports (EAS) is an umbrella body who are negotiating with them. Their lead expert for model aircraft just happens to be the BMFA's CEO, and as you could guess, he is all over this.

He is also working very closely with the CAA to agree a joint position - because the interpretation of the EASA rules will be implemented by the Department of Transport and CAA want to present them with a unified approach.

[Erfolg]

Keith. my use of negotiating team is a little strong in respect of the BMFA it is more about influencing.

As to the notion that EASA do not negotiate, that may be a public stance. The real position is that there some they cannot ignore and negotiate with, if they want acceptance at a national governmental level. Again in the real world, many in these organisations owe there positions and more importantly their future positions and honours on keeping some people happy.

The world is not a place that all are equal, and that good arguments etc, will naturally succeed.

I know that BEB does not like politics discussed here, although this whole process is a very complex political issue, in its entirety, where issues of national interests as well as the practical aspects are important.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Its not BEB's view Erf - its the forum. This is a place to learn about, debate and discuss model aeroplanes - and specific factors that influance them - I stress the "specific" bit! It is not a place for generalised political debate - there are other forums for such debate if people wish to engage in that. We prefer to focus on what we know and what - hopefully - will not cause major internal conflicts - which we believe open political debate will inevitably do.

BEB

[Keith Lomax]

They key point that I was trying to get across is that BMFA, through our CEO, has been very active in the discussions as we have supported his involvement with Europe Airsports (EAS) who are fronting all modelling associations in the discussion with EASA.

If you want the political slant on this, EAS is having to use the French and German MEPs to influence EASA, as they carry a lot more clout in Brussels than the UK MEPs.

[Erfolg]

Keith, I am not interested in the political aspect, that is beyond that essentially EASA has fundamentally as part of its underpinnings, operations and development a strong political aspect.

Unfortunately we modellers across Europe are no more than a (small) set of pressure groups. When compared to the resources that commerce have available, we are at a major disadvantage.

Although most of us will see the discussions and papers as recent formulations, in reality they are just a continuum of the organisations operations. Where for years, interested parties will have been lobbying directly, in addition to interactions with various Governmental ministers and ministries where again lobbyists will have been doing there work, which appear to be indirect, although fundamental.

Against this type of background, the BMFA would benefit from willing volunteers who will support our team that fronts us with respect to these proposals. It is quite clear that a small number on this forum enjoy reading and analysing and comprehending the probable impact that the published texts contain. In essence I believe that just in preparation our team has a lot on its plate. Anything which alleviates these aspects allowing greater concentration with interfacing with those who make and influence the making of decisions, which can only improve our effectiveness, as well as safe guarding the health of our representatives.

[Rich too]

I get the impression that most on the forum accept the proposals and will just fall in line.

[Piers Bowlan]

For all law abiding citizens (everyone on this forum at least) we have no option but to 'fall in line' once this is enshrined in law. The majority will probably accept the proposals, hoping that the BMFA or EAS will negotiate 'a good deal' with EASA/UKCAA. Very sensibly, they would probably rather be out flying their models than writing to an MEP and not even getting a reply (I wrote to 20 MEPs = not one reply!). I can only conclude that the majority have their priorities right!

[Erfolg]

My local MP was Graham Brady, he certainly did listen. Did it have any material benefit is another matter.

Although I have met my new MP, i did not think to raise the topic with him. That is my fault.

I do think that MPs do listen, I personally just hope that if our topics come up, they will have another perspective to that often is portrayed.

[MattyB]

Posted by Rich2 on 24/05/2017 11:18:10:

I get the impression that most on the forum accept the proposals and will just fall in line.

At this point I am not sure there is enough detail here for any of us to "accept the proposals and fall in to line". There are large areas of uncertainty that will need to be clarified before that can be the case, especially under operations under subcategory A3 and the specifics of how the CAA choose to implement the final result in the UK. I cannot see us getting that clarity for 1-2 years (I fear there is plenty of lobbying to be done on both sides before a final ratified document emerges).